Vikas Pandey vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Vikas Pandey, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 28, 2023, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (Respondent No. 2). The Commission rejected the petitioner's second appeal, which sought the answer sheet of a candidate who had passed the recruitment examination for the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. The petitioner contended that the Commission's reasoning for rejecting the appeal was contrary to the facts and failed to explain why the information was not supplied. The State Information Commission argued that its order was detailed and without illegality.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated December 28, 2023, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission was arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The Court found that the Commission had not adequately discussed or explained the reasons for not providing the information sought by the petitioner. Citing the Supreme Court's judgments in East Coast Railway and Another v Mahadev Appa Rao and Others and Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v Shukla and Brothers, the Court reiterated that the recording of reasons is essential for demonstrating the application of mind by an authority and is a fundamental aspect of dispensing justice. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order. The Court granted liberty to the State Information Commission to reconsider the appeal afresh, providing an opportunity of hearing to all parties and deciding the matter in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated December 28, 2023, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, rejecting the petitioner's second appeal, is arbitrary and legally unsustainable due to a lack of proper application of mind and absence of reasons, as contemplated under the principles of natural justice and established judicial precedents. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Information Commission's order was based on reasons contrary to the facts and records, and it failed to adequately explain the grounds for denying the requested information. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in East Coast Railway and Another v Mahadev Appa Rao and Others, and Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v Shukla and Brothers, emphasizing the necessity of recording reasons for administrative orders to demonstrate application of mind and ensure justice. Revenue/State's arguments: The counsel for the State Information Commission submitted that the order passed by the Commission was detailed and contained no illegality.